I think they were dicks to each other back then, their language was just a little more eloquent sounding.
Whenever someone says "With all due respect", "Respectfully submitted", etc. It's always a precursor to some form of sarcasm or assholery. I've never actually seen it used sincerely. Thus, my bitterness spilled forth. My most sincere apologies if you were, in fact, submitting respectfully.
The thing I find most interesting is what our bad experiences left us thinking in the end.
Yeah, so anyhoo, rock on.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 21.05.2009 @ 15:02
Please do me the kind favor of naming a government program that was eliminated because of poor performance? The answer is it doesn’t happen. When government programs don’t work, the government throws more resources at them. It is never a bad idea or poorly executed, it was just under funded.
They morph or merge into other programs. My question still stands. I have not read about this happening at all, and I'll bet that you haven't either.
I have had the conversation you describe when my newborn son was in the neonatal intensive care unit. The sent me a $30,000 bill for 5 days because he wasn’t named on my policy before he was born, even though the terms of the policy clearly stated that newborns are covered for 30 days after delivery. It took me 18 months of fighting to get the issue resolved. As bad as that was, if it that fight had been with a government agency, I would have no chance of winning, and they could have used their police powers to enforce the decision.
So your 18 month long crappy experience with a public corporation led you to the conclusion that you were lucky it wasn't the government. That's great. My 4 month long nightmare led me to think, There is no way that the government could be worse than what I just went through. Our brains work differently. I can accept that.
With respect, do you really believe that handing this over to government is the way to get rid of services provided by the lowest bidder? How do you think they buy things
You think you've got me on this one. That's why you pulled the "With respect" bullshit. But there is a major difference between lowest bidder with whatever hidden requirements and standards we deem necessary, and lowest bidder with open requirements and standards which are accessible to the people who are actually paying the bill. Something a public corporation would never ever do.
Hell, the current bureaucracy in the corporate insurance world is more than enough to pay for all the uninsured people in the US RIGHT NOW! Oh, but the government would be WAY worse than that, right?Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 19.05.2009 @ 16:29
Well said. Obamacare is not ‘reform’ it’s just more of the same, down the slippery slope to socialized medicine which does NOT work. It costs too much for too little payback, and denies us choice, quality and innovation.
I've been reading a great deal about the possibilities with a nationalized health care system. Due to a couple of really really horrible personal experiences with the current system, I can say with great confidence that there simply must be a better way.
You try having a conversation with a disinterested third party at an insurance company who refuses to pay for tests on a loved one that the doctor deems necessary. You tell me how you feel after the lowest f'ing bidder tries to deny you services and you're forced to mediate between the doctor and the insurance company. For services that you are paying for in your ridiculously enormous monthly premiums...
If nationalized health care is so bad, why has no country that I've ever read about, gotten rid of it yet? You'd think that if it denied us CHOICE, QUALITY, and INNOVATION, that these countries would have dropped it by now in favor of a better system. A system like the awesome one we have now.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 18.05.2009 @ 10:27
I have noted a pattern - - - - even in the face of direct requests to state the ‘moderate’ platform, it doesn’t happen … C’mon guys - it ought not be this hard to answer the question.
You're not going to get an answer, because your question is bunk and makes zero sense. But, you already know that. Which is why you're standing on our soap box thumping your chest so hard. You think you're right. You think you've got the ignorant rubes beat. But, the rest of us are actually laughing at you.
"Moderate" isn't a political party. There is no platform. It's a philosophy applied to certain aspects of life where absolutism is detrimental for more people than a less rigid position. Your grand standing on the issue is laughable, and either you're a troll, or you simply don't get it.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 20.05.2009 @ 09:20
Tell us what you “moderates” are for, not just what (and who) you are against.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say, moderation?Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 16.05.2009 @ 17:29
Sorry Freedoms Truth, by Godwins law (and horrible, horrible logic) you fail.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 14.05.2009 @ 16:37
A list, by no means complete:
Wow. I had no idea.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 14.05.2009 @ 16:34
John Howard said:
...restricted lifestyles due to a massively indebted government... opposition to abortion as mere religious fanaticism.
Um, yeah, there is exactly zero correlation here. None. Logic fail.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 13.05.2009 @ 08:55
Kevin Brown said:
and the miserable failure that is the welfare state no matter how many Republican presidents we have.
What do you mean by this? Care to elaborate a bit?Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 12.05.2009 @ 14:51
Religion has been confused with “traditional values” in order to justify the infallibility of many positions on social issues.
You make it sound like this was not by design.Comment Posted By Chuck Tucson On 12.05.2009 @ 13:20